Flying & Testing the Russian SU-27 Flanker

Flying & Testing the Russian SU-27 Flanker | Dave Best (Clip)

Рет қаралды 40,486

2 жыл бұрын

Former RAF Phantom and test pilot, Dave Best, shares how the opportunity came about to fly and test the SU-27 Flanker.
This is a clip from part 2 of Dave's interview which you can watch here - www.aircrewinterview.tv/#/tes...
Watch part 1 here - www.aircrewinterview.tv/#/pha...
Thank you to our sponsor ferryalesbrewery.co.uk for sponsoring the 2 part interview. Head over to their website to check out their amazing beers and get 5% off with discount code Aircrew225
Watch part 1 here - www.aircrewinterview.tv/#/pha...
Help keep the channel going:
PATREON - / aircrewinterview
DONATE - www.aircrewinterview.tv/donate/
Purchase our Aviation Art Book, Volume One - amzn.to/3sehpaP
Visit our online shop: www.redbubble.com/people/acin...
Follow us:
www.aircrewinterview.tv/
/ aircrew_interview
/ aircrewinterview
/ aircrewtv
Original thumbnail photo by Dave Best
Thank you to Simon O'Connell for letting us film with his resident Tornado GR1 - shootaviation.com/

Пікірлер: 70

@DJEDzTV 11 ай бұрын

Su-27 is a masterpiece, i am building a model of one now and it looks naturally beautiful from all angles.

@whatthehell1012 11 ай бұрын

Best looking jet ever

@bigdarshan 11 ай бұрын

Exactly ... I hate how westerners diss this plane saying that maneuverability is no longer relevant. If Western fighters could do it then they would be boasting about it too. It's high time we give credit where it's due. Lovely interview

@geraldheinig1473 11 ай бұрын

@@whatthehell1012 Agreed. Sexiest aircraft in the sky.

@LittlealxYT Жыл бұрын

So humble , balanced and articulate for someone that has achieved so much in their life. I don't even know him and I want to buy this man a beer and listen to him for an hour. great interview

@Aircrewinterview Жыл бұрын

Thanks!

@72marshflower15 11 ай бұрын

@@Aircrewinterview ~ to be fair, if anyone knew what the U.S. military does, they wouldn’t want to buy you guys a beer.. I’ve been told this by countless vets..

@fredorico41 11 ай бұрын

@@72marshflower15 RAF mate not the US, halfwits abound.👍🍺🇦🇺

@72marshflower15 11 ай бұрын

@@fredorico41 ~ this specific commenter/Original Poster is a kiwi? How do you know that? What does it matter? RAF are cucks of US imperialism, so your point is meant only to deflect.. Kiwi cucks imprison their own freedom fighters as it is. #FreeAssange

@Panigale67 11 күн бұрын

@@72marshflower15 because?

@uha6477 2 жыл бұрын

What an amazing experience this guy had. This is the most interesting take on a Flanker I've heard.

@akm6019 3 ай бұрын

The cobra maybe a “party trick” but it never hurts if you can stop on a dime mid flight and have the enemy overshoot you so you can gain their 6. It also shows the planes’ incredible ability to recover from a stall.

@matthayward7889 2 жыл бұрын

Probably the best bit of one of your best ever interviews!

@Battlenude 10 ай бұрын

He did flew the two seater Su-27UB, which has a bit more drag due to the canopy. In the mid90's the Russians started fielding the AL-31FM1 engines, which had more thrust.

@Semendrija123 6 ай бұрын

Actually, it has a lot more drag since its speed is at least Mach 0,35 lower than the single seater, and the range is reduced by 600 km! Also, the plane is 1,2 tones heavier, so imagine his impressions flying the single seater!

@mikoriad 2 жыл бұрын

What a dream opportunity for a pilot... Great one again!

@3dmax911 11 ай бұрын

who would think a big jet like the falnker can beat a small fast jet likr the Hawk in ACM !!! wow love the flankers

@obsidianzarok2361 11 ай бұрын

Super beautiful aircraft look at those curves.

@arduinoguru7233 11 ай бұрын

I needed to watch this second time after a year, to fully understand what this expert pilot said.

@deetwodcs4683 2 жыл бұрын

The flanker is one or no, it is, my favorite russian airplane. I love the little bottom nintendo DS screen w/ datalink it has compared to the hud replicator the mig-29 has. I also love that the guy thinks the same way about the cobra as I do, it's mostly a party trick and makes me cringe when watching top gun. It used to be so cool, then I started to play simulators, losing energy is death. Kinda like you sweat you die when surviving in the wilderness, most of the time if you lose to much energy (compared to your bandit ofcourse) you die in a dogfight.. in cold war jets anyway. In the new gen you don't do anything but BVR anyway so speed doesn't matter that much anymore.

@bigblue6917 2 жыл бұрын

First time I saw the cobra my thought was well that's a great way to get yourself killed.

@thecircusfreak5364 Жыл бұрын

If you were to make it into the merge and it has Fox 2s that can be cued by a helmet mounted system … it’s no longer a party trick - or at least the ability to rapidly bring the nose to an aspect that would allow the Su-27 to fire a Fox 2 becomes a veeeery deadly capability. The cobra maneuver is less important than what the ability to perform the cobra maneuver implies. However Western pilots would argue that you’ve made a mistake to make it to the merge with the Su-27.

@dmitryyeronov62 11 ай бұрын

Hi. People all over the world misunderstand such tricks, and for some reason they decided that it could be used in battle. BUT, designers and test pilots have never claimed that such tricks are cool for aerial combat. These tricks should show that the pilot can trust the aircraft in any situation during an air battle. By the way, speed is important, but modern combat aircraft cannot fly indefinitely on the afterburner, there comes a moment when the fighter engine begins to degrade in critical modes. Here lies the danger that an ordinary aircraft will become poorly controlled and become an easy target for the enemy. The SU 27 is just designed for such situations, if suddenly you find yourself in a difficult situation to have a controlled aircraft and will not become an easy target.

@Eleolius 11 ай бұрын

So the Cobra is badly misunderstood by even Western fighter pilots. It's not for forcing overshoots or, particularly, enabling a HOBS shot- though it could be used for that. It was intended to be used in BVR. Basically, when firing your mixed-seeker salvo out, you'd throw chaff and cobra. The reason was to dump speed and fall almost instantly to a Pulse-Doppler notch and break the enemy's lock- and then resume level flight without losing altitude, remaining high for the second salvo and diving after the enemy fighter who, most likely, F-poled or went cold when they realized they had been trashed. This would work even against early Fox 3s like AMRAAM-B, if done before it went active- though against AESA and later BVRAAMs the usefulness in this regard is unlikely. Combined with defensive jamming, it would give a Flanker group a very real chance of getting a dominant position on western jets that would expect an F-pole maneuver- as when they tried to re-acquire the Flanker, he would still be at 30-50,000 ft, and the western jet, while very fast, would have dumped into thicker air down low. When it comes to BVR, altitude contributes much more to PK than speed, though both matter. A Flanker up high may spend a few seconds slow, but it could always fire a second salvo, and rapidly regain speed via diving under the cover of it's second salvo of missiles. This is also where the mixed seeker missile doctrine makes extra sense: IR BVRAAMs would be better able to see a flanking target that one inbound, and would continue to track quietly even if the enemy Fpole worked. A second salvo ET also could work similar to a fox 3, enabling the Flanker to dive fully defensive while keeping a shot in the air at a recomitting enemy plane who thought they were in the clear. Just as in WVR, it's not a win button- but against 1980s and 1990s mechanical PD radars, it actually stands a good chance of breaking a lock- and keeping in mind the USSR threat board included a -lot- of 3rd-ish gens like the Phantom, Tornado, Tomcat, F1, F5, Mirage III types that this tactic would likely work very well against, though it obviously would work less well the better the PD radar set it faced and taking the EW/multiple threats situation into account. Part of why this is so poorly understood is that A) while post soviet pilots were happy to share their jets hardware for cash, to an extent, the Flanker in particular wasn't as exported just yet and teaching advanced BVR tactics, even for Russians, is a great way to go to prison. Even in the West, retired pilots won't often discuss or show even 1980s BVR tactics off beyond what is in public manuals and such- as they could end up behind bars. They also are very happy to allow misconceptions to go uncorrected or even encourage some: if, say, a future adversary thinks the Cobra is a WVR hat trick, he won't expect you to pull it at 40,000 ft and 30 miles. Those seconds of confusion are plenty to get a crucial advantage- especially when you know the other guy has an avionics and missile edge on you. (Also, final bit on Cobra in BVR: the Soviets knew from reports American doctrine included taking low PK missile shots with fox 3's like Phoenix to force an enemy defensive early and to dominate the fight from there. They knew therefore that rapidly eliminating closure rate would ruin BVR RNE/PK calculations and, if a lock were broken, ensure misses and let the Soviet pilots come out offensive faster. Whether this would work or not is of course up for debate- and modern sensor suites like F-35 has would obviously not work. IRST networked to AESA is nearly impossible to hide from without stealth features and/or really inclement weather and jamming to hide in.)

@jwagner1993 11 ай бұрын

Crazy, Sukhoi agreed to open their super war machine to the west military industrial complex, believing the Cold war era was gone 😅.

@raheemharris766 9 ай бұрын

Showers the Russians wanted a genuine open relashuoship with the west, but they where douped

@michaelg.9791 2 ай бұрын

Look up " threat assessment " . Western counties purchase Soviet fighters from 3rd party countries to assess & familiarize their fighter pilots, that's no secret.

@polnoeceloe 11 ай бұрын

So, the Russians made a very simple and functional aircraft. This pilot did not compare the ease of control of the Russian and Western aircraft, but from the fact that he repeated several times about simplicity, I can conclude that the control of the Russian aircraft is easier

@jefreyjefrey6349 11 ай бұрын

saw those babies flying 100 meters over the ground with 600 km/h.

@juliensorel5535 8 ай бұрын

From what I have read the "flanker" class have state-of-the-art radar systems. I know this applies to the su-35, and I was hoping to find out if it applies to the su-27. Flying is one part, detecting what is coming at you is another part.

@michaelsmulkowski746 9 ай бұрын

I had this game on the PC. Very underrated.

@m0rvidusm0rvidus18 2 жыл бұрын

The Sukhoi designers are still banned from Wimbledon though.

@rajeevkumar9546 11 ай бұрын

Good bcz nobody gives a f#@ about Wimbledon

@Dylan-cr5ub 9 ай бұрын

SU 27 is a special aircraft.

@shannonparker7404 2 жыл бұрын

First! lol. Love your work, and thank you for your efforts.

@Aircrewinterview 2 жыл бұрын

Cheers

@AKlover 2 жыл бұрын

You would think acceleration/energy build up would be of focused importance for A plane built to fight slow and pull post stall maneuvers???

@Turboy65 11 ай бұрын

It's almost like the Russians weren't considering how missiles would become increasingly dangerous in the decades to come....so they built a large fighter whose best tricks are giving up energy in a dogfight in the hopes of getting a brief gun shot. It's actually weird.

@AKlover 11 ай бұрын

@@Turboy65 If your opponent is taught "Energy is Life" and nothing else shock/surprise may work. Also many American fighters cannot run away anymore from the Mig-29 or Sukhoi variant, Hornets or F-35s HAVE TO TURN IN AND FIGHT. the F-22 cannot be everywhere and an F-15 will do whatever it can to stay away. The other thing the fanboys forget is the meddling politicians setting the rules of engagement to require getting within visual....... The Rus or Chi DID NOT FORGET THAT I ASSURE YOU.

@chadwarden593 11 ай бұрын

@@Turboy65being able to quickly pull AOA for nose position will help get a fox 2 off quicker, also the jet is still capable of rating with an eagle, not quite as good, blue side always took energy management as more important than nose position fighting, but the Russian aircraft are still useful in the modern environment, especially with thier helmet mounted sight systems and modernized fox 2 and 3 missles, theoretically, even in a BVR fight, being able to turn in quicker after defending from an enemy missle could be useful, also in larger scale fights with lots of aircraft and confusion, I'd bet some people will still get to the merge...

@mab2187 11 ай бұрын

You're not taking HMD and AOA authority. Flankers will dominate in WVR@@Turboy65

@xyz-hj6ul 11 ай бұрын

Would have been nice, if the Brits had returned the favor. Russian pilots are not allowed to front or back seat in anything British or American and presumably only took up the RAF out of pride or desperation to fit in as a belief in glasnost (or money). The Tornado F.3 is nothing if you don't show them the avionics which, in 1991, were 'Blue Circle' lousy. but a quick run through the Mach Loop, at night, on the deck, at speed, in a GR.1, with goggles, would have at least been something Mr. Frolov could tell his grand kids about. Same goes for the F-15, which is closer to the Flanker than many give credit for. Better energy addition, comparable high speed turn, less nose authority. We should have built bridges and not barriers. Doubt if that will ever be possible now.

@geraldheinig1473 11 ай бұрын

I suppose you could interpret that in a different way, arguing that not letting the Russian pilots take a spin proves that Western gear is hard to fly and difficult to use right, which is basically what Dave was saying. In other words, it's not exactly a compliment for Western aircraft. I totally agree we should have built bridges and not barriers. What we have now is an expensive wasteland.

@xyz-hj6ul 11 ай бұрын

@@geraldheinig1473 Modern fighters are ridiculously easy to fly. A Cessna 172 pilot would find an F-15 a wondrously simple cross country experience, just because speed and alpha are not directly connected by stick and throttle setting so that things like weather and traffic are easy to get above or around. A civilian might tend to get behind the jet a bit on landings and takeoffs, simply because rotation and gear translation speeds are quite a bit higher/faster occurring (250 knots in the pattern, 160 knots on approach, 145 touch down, compared to 150-110-100) but you simply tell him 'I have the jet' and he lets the expert do the hard parts. The same would be true for the Russians, not for want of skill, but because the narrow track gear of the F-15/16 does make them a little bit more subject to bunny hopping and crosswind effects. If you flew an F-15 with CAS off (hydromechanical Control Augmentation System, a kind of artificial stability assist, less than fly by wire) it would be difficult. The Eagle is a hybrid control system, with electric signaling but no real overarching automated flight control authority, at least in the A-D fighter variants. The result being a need to watch alpha limiters and roll index for load state and do a lot of blending to keep the turns coordinated. Eagle Drivers are some of the best fighter pilots in the world, simply because they have to work for it a lot more than other jets. On an F-16 or F-18, even that option to mess up is absent as everything is essentially blended through the FLCS limiters so that you cannot hands-of-hamburger make too awful a mistake. You can deep stall a Viper which can be rather embarrassing, depending on the external loads and blk. variant, but a Blk.50 can be put into a stab override mode and 'rocked through' back to a point where the big motor will essentially power you out to flying speed, if you have the altitude. The Hornet is essentially alphaless, but is a slug in all other departments with a Ps curve closer to a Hun than a Rhino. I would not advocate the Hornet as a Russian display aircraft, simply because it would be immediately obvious as being kinematically inferior to either the Fulcrum or Flanker which can essentially do what it does, slow speed + pitch authority as well as having the energy addition and sustained high speed maneuverability of the F-15/16. Indeed, about the only thing a Soviet era pilot might have found shocking about our jets was how fast we can wind up a turn and how rapidly we can reverse the loaded roll conditions in the higher speed regimes. You can GLC knock yourself out if you are not flying constantly and doing weight room and centrifuge training on a consistent basis. However; just as I'm sure that the Su-27UB pilot was carefully monitoring the Americans to make sure they didn't get into iffy parts of the envelope (The Flanker is closer to an early F-16, unless you specifically turn off the limiters which the Viper cannot do, the MiG-29 is the closest to an F-15 analog where you can physically exceed the stick shaker alpha limiter in particular but need to be a real expert to exploit the advantage, to tactical utility), an American instructor in the back seat would give ample warning if the Soviet honcho was 'getting close' to an irrecoverable/unsafe flight condition. 'I have the jet...' There would likely be a short ground school to illustrate the available envelope open to them as a function of planned test points (this is how the Soviets did squadron training with low annual hours pilots, using a literal walk around preflight, holding stick models, so they would understand/appreciate all relevant tactical geometries in their fixed tactics). Added to which, the Soviets would also, undoubtedly, be sending the best of their test pilot cadre, both to make sure they didn't embarrass themselves with a low houred nugget mistake and to maximize the utility of any intel. It's not what you know but what you can reliably write up a flight test report on that matters in the aerospace engineering arena. We would also have a definitive advantage here, in that we can load up a jet with a completely certified, safe, OFP (Operational Flight Program) which still limiters the aircraft below what it can achieve, in home service. This is a function of our vigorous export efforts which sell the brand but not the same hardware. Ultimately the latter are also what makes withholding access to existing, Gen-4, aircraft impossible to justify. If not Israel, then Venezuela. If not Indonesia, then Egypt. There are so many F-16s in so many places which previously were or have since gone a little bit into the Soviet/Russian camp that it would be almost impossible to prevent someone, somewhere, from getting an extended fam ride. The Russians also have super computers and TsAGI competent wind tunnel test facilities, they likely have a pretty good idea of what the Finite Element Studies limits of the aircraft are, assuming they didn't just pay to steal the data. Like we do. Diplomatically, as a function of bringing particularly the post glasnost (Putin) era Russians into the OSCE and eventually EU, to rapidly lock-in our access to the vast economic resources which are now fast-walking Eastwards, it would have been better if it was us (NATO) that did it. Ninety percent of what is secret in our jets is a function of avionics/sensor modes and metallurgy as not _what_ the performance is but how we achieve it, at a systems design and integration level. Deactivate the BVR/NCTR widget, don't talk about the engines. And you're more or less good to go. Now, we're back into Cold War II and looking to waste another PNAC century, glaring at each other across fences, as populations build, economies decline and resources deplete. Whoohoo, nawt. Stop. Chasing. The. Flock. Of. Black. Swans.

@geraldheinig1473 11 ай бұрын

@@xyz-hj6ul Wow. That's definitely the longest and possibly also the most interesting reply I've ever received on any public forum, certainly on KZbin. Thank you very much xyz-hj6ul! Are you a fighter pilot yourself, do you have fast jet experience? I'm unfortunately limited to doing 135 knots in my Mooney, which keeps me happy, although I wouldn't say no to another 100 knots or so 😁

@panzerpoodle 6 ай бұрын

F15 and su27 hatten ein Vergleich fliegen in Amerika, von 8 simulierten dogfights gewannen die Russen 8, der Kommandant der amerikanischen airbase sagte danach es war ungefähr unentschieden 😂

@joshenarvidsano9976 10 ай бұрын

Speed is life........

@NothingIsKnown00 10 ай бұрын

British pilots flying Flankers so BAE systems could help Sukhoi export them. How times have changed.

@OurnameisLegion66 11 ай бұрын

Alan partridge

@stefanpuszka2835 11 ай бұрын

Yes I get it

@Siddich 2 жыл бұрын

Sukhoi alowing BEA Systems to testfly the plane - almost as naiv as the brits sending nene engines to russia…

@anasevi9456 Жыл бұрын

lol, tbf it's mostly been BVR since the 1990s, and even the latest Sukhoi's; the 35S and 57 are BVR monsters with state of the art radar and missiles like western 4.5/5th gen jets. That being said, the original Flanker will always be the undisputed champion of the airshows to me.

@MS-wz9jm 11 ай бұрын

All of Russia was pillaged by the west in those years unfortunately

@user-yz1zt1nq1p 10 ай бұрын

@@anasevi9456R37 and R77 are above everything else

@thecursed01 11 ай бұрын

impressive how good it is..oh he talks in comparison to the tornado... a thrown bag of bag poop is a better flying object than a tornado

@jarraandyftm 11 ай бұрын

Is it really?

@thecursed01 11 ай бұрын

@jarraandyftm a bag of poop won't try kill its pilot. Not sure if all tornados were terrible or just the german ones.

@jarraandyftm 11 ай бұрын

@@thecursed01 poop? Are you 12? Come on mate.

@thecursed01 11 ай бұрын

@@jarraandyftm what would be a better term that also doesn't possibly trigger yt scripts to hide comments with inappropriate words? English isn't my native language.

@jarraandyftm 11 ай бұрын

@@thecursed01 shit?